|
|
 |
12-04-2012, 11:32 AM
|
#1
|
|
Diamond Member
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Manchester, NH
Posts: 5,425
|
Higher than 60Hz Monitors (Higher than 60fps needed?)
I am looking into getting that Asus 144Hz monitor, but I want to know if this is the case. In order to see the benefit of the higher refresh rate, do you need to maintain a fps that is the same as the Monitors refresh rate, or will there be a difference no matter what your fps is?
__________________
i5 2500k @ 4.5GHz | Cooler Master Hyper 212 Plus | Asus P8Z68-V Pro | 8GB G.Skill Ripjaws X | Sapphire 7950 @ 1150/1400 | Corsair tx650 PSU | 256GB Samsung 830 series 6Gb/s | 1TB Western Digital Black 6Gb/s | Antec P280 | 27" Acer B273H LCD 1080p | Logitech Z-2300 | Windows 8 Pro x64
|
|
|
|
12-04-2012, 11:54 AM
|
#2
|
|
Diamond Member
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 5,500
|
Theoretically a 144Hz monitor should always look better then a 60Hz monitor as it will be able to draw any ready frames faster. Realistically I doubt you could tell the difference if you are not able to maintain a FPS well over 60.
__________________
"The open society, the unrestricted access to knowledge, the unplanned and uninhibited association of men for its furtherance? These are what may make a vast, complex, ever-growing, ever-changing, ever more specialized and expert technological world nevertheless a world of human community." - J. Robert Oppenheimer
|
|
|
|
|
12-05-2012, 04:06 PM
|
#3
|
|
Lifer
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: On Vitamin D3 and Aphrodisiacs
Posts: 11,887
|
i don't think the fps matters if it flickers at 60Hz vs 144Hz, am i wrong?
__________________
Rig1: i7 920 stock, Asrock X58, HD 5770, OCZ 840 Pro, Cherry MX Blacks, Seasonic X 650w, Aluminum Full tower, 86w idle - Main
Rig2: i7 920 @ 3.91GHz, EVGA 760 Classified, GTX 670 FTW, Elpida Hyper @ 1570MHz CL 6.6.6.18 1.6v, Vertex2 100g, Cherry MX Reds, R.A.T. 7, Enermax Revo 950w, Obsidian 800D. 171w idle - UT3 machine
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdamK47
This is General Hardware, so you'll have a lot of cheapies trying to talk you down. I say go bigger.
|
|
|
|
|
|
12-10-2012, 09:30 AM
|
#4
|
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: European Union
Posts: 267
|
You need to actually drive more than 60fps to derive the main benefits from a monitor that runs above 60Hz.
That said, there are some anecdotes on places like 120Hz.net, from people who claim that 60fps@120hz does feel slightly smoother than 60fps@60hz.
In short, don't buy a monitor greater than 60Hz unless you're willing to do what it takes (i.e., sacrifice eye-candy or upgrade your hardware) to actually drive 60-144fps
|
|
|
|
|
12-10-2012, 09:33 AM
|
#5
|
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Travelling, from Italy
Posts: 485
|
You need to get more than 60fps.
But you will see the difference even at 80fps, as linustechtips proved.
So I'd say go for it. Worst case scenario you will have to drop graphics options to have higher fps, but it's well worth it.
__________________
Ipsa scientia potestas est
|
|
|
|
|
12-10-2012, 09:49 AM
|
#6
|
|
Platinum Member
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,543
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Black Octagon
That said, there are some anecdotes on places like 120Hz.net, from people who claim that 60fps@120hz does feel slightly smoother than 60fps@60hz
|
I'm not so sure about smoother, but it does pull 0-16ms off the input delay depending on your criteria of measure.
|
|
|
|
|
12-11-2012, 04:03 AM
|
#7
|
|
Golden Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,961
|
60@60 can help to reduce microstutter slightly but really you need lower average frame times to benefit from a higher hz monitor.
__________________
i7 3930k @4.4, 2xMSI GTX 680, 16 4x4 GB Corsair 2133 RAM, Crucial m4 500GB, Dell U2410 24" and 2x Samsung 2443 24", Xonar D2X. All custom watercooled by 2x MCR 320 and 1 MCR 480
Got a frametime trace that stutters? Send me a PM
|
|
|
|
|
12-11-2012, 04:43 AM
|
#8
|
|
Lifer
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 11,229
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by BTRY B 529th FA BN
i don't think the fps matters if it flickers at 60Hz vs 144Hz, am i wrong?
|
of course it matters, if a screen is refreshing 60 times per second, you won't be able to truly benefit from having frame rates higher than 60fps
not only does a higher frame rate (60fps isn't that high) help with tracking fast moving objects, it improves input response times
I have yet to see a gamer who didn't think their upgrade to 120Hz (or better) mattered, and most simply can't even tolerate 60Hz if they ever had to go back to it.
__________________
i7 3930K @ 4.7GHz + XSPC Raystorm/EX280/D5 | ASUS Sabertooth X79 | EVGA GeForce GTX680 | 4x4GB Samsung Green DDR3 @ 1866 CAS9 1.5v | 2x256GB Samsung 830 RAID-0 | 3 x 1.5TB Hitachi 7K3000 RAID-0 | Windows 7 Ultimate x64 | Creative X-Fi Titanium HD | Seasonic Platinum-1000 | Silverstone FT02 | BenQ XL2420T | Dell U2711 | Filco Majestouch-2 Tenkeyless Cherry MX Red | Razer Abyssus + Goliathus Speed | Beyerdynamic MMX300 / Steelseries Siberia V2
|
|
|
|
12-11-2012, 05:19 AM
|
#9
|
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: European Union
Posts: 267
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by bunnyfubbles
of course it matters, if a screen is refreshing 60 times per second, you won't be able to truly benefit from having frame rates higher than 60fps
not only does a higher frame rate (60fps isn't that high) help with tracking fast moving objects, it improves input response times
I have yet to see a gamer who didn't think their upgrade to 120Hz (or better) mattered, and most simply can't even tolerate 60Hz if they ever had to go back to it.
|
I must agree with this. I moved to 120Hz this year and literally get a headache if gaming at 60@60 now...and I've got poor eyes to boot
__________________
Asrock Extreme3 Z68 | i5-2500k @ 4.6Ghz | 8GB Corsair Vengeance | Sapphire HD7970 @ 1250/1750 | Crucial M4 128GB | CM Hyper Evo 212 | Overlord Tempest X270OC @ 120Hz
|
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:37 AM.
|
